On September 1, a group of royalists created a ruckus by trying to reinstate the bust of the late king Birendra at the Dhamboji crossroads in Nepaljung. On that very spot, in the wake of Jana Andolan II in 2006, a mob had demolished the late king’s statue. Due to security concerns, the police removed the bust in the middle of the night and the crowd became smaller. Earlier, the National Electricity Authority’s move to disconnect power supply to Mahendra Manjil, inside Narayanhiti Palace, where former queen mother Ratna Rajya Laxmi Shah is spending her retirement days, provided a cue for the royalists to agitate and chant ‘raja aau, desh bachau’. Is this a signal of darker days for the republic?

Definitely, rajabadis are on rise. Even our firebrand prime minister seems to have lost his revolutionary steam and is now dubbed “PM directive” for issuing varied directives. What is cooking in the federal democratic republic of Nepal? Are we losing the grounds for federalism, democracy and republicanism?

No Sihanouk

It is believed that every crisis gives birth to a leader. But it seems to be the other way around in Nepal, where leaders give birth to crises. As political leaders continue to lose their credibility, there is increased speculation among the public about what will happen if the elections are not held by January 21, 2018. Who is going to fill the void if this constitution is not implemented?

Some people guess that in such an eventuality, the constitution of 1990 will be revived and, with this, the saviour king will make a comeback, as the rajabadis are chanting. Some people are imagining a Cambodia-like situation. Cambodia promulgated a new constitution in 1993 and the monarchy was restored after 21 years, following general elections organised and supervised by the United Nations. King Norodom Sihanouk returned to the throne he had abdicated in 1955 in order to enter politics. But the problem is that Gyanendra is not Sihanouk though he had an opportunity to become king twice in his life. The probability of him becoming king for the third time is slim. For good or bad, unlike Sihanouk, Gyanendra has so far shied away from entering active politics. Moreover, the popularity of Nepali monarchy is low. It is deeply haunted by the indelible and gruesome palace massacre. The arguments for a cultural or baby king have lost steam since a long time back. What then is the fuss of the rajabadis?

Turning back the clock

The speculation that the monarchy might be reinstated has to do with the despair people have been endlessly put through due to political chaos. People simply hope that with the monarchy in place, things will improve. The current musing that it is better to be ruled by a single lion than by hundreds of jackals is actually in reference to the looting of the national coffer by the political elites. But organised corruption is no better than haphazard corruption.

With increasing uncertainty about the implementation of the constitution, the royalist surrogates—pro-hindu, anti-federal and anti-secular forces—are making deafening noises. That people long for the past is no surprise. During the bad old Panchayat days, we had people harking back to the Rana days. Similarly, during the multi-party system, we had people harking back to the Panchayat days. Therefore, it is no surprise that now we have some people longing for a constitutional, if not an absolute, monarchy. When people are uncertain about their future, they cling on to the idea of security experienced in the past.

Reinstating the monarchy will be like turning back the clock. We have experienced this scenario, albeit briefly, in 2005. The current internal flux may be similar to that of the 1950s. However, the external situation is different now. All the political changes in Nepal have been possible only through a combination of external and internal factors. There is little possibility now of another India-China war; the Cold War ended a long time back and Nepal no longer enjoys geo-political, military strategic advantage. There is no possibility of Queen Elizabeth visiting Nepal to justify regime change.

Clinging to religion

So far Hinduism seems to be a solid political plank for rajabadis. The other plank may be anti-federalism. The monarchists may garner some external sympathy for these causes but social inclusion is the guiding political philosophy of the day. Rajabadis should remember that their principles—hereditary, monocultural, exclusive—go against the basic premise of inclusiveness. It is an irony that RPP-Nepal—a pro-monarchist party—has all its members coming from the Proportional Representative (PR) system rather than through the first-past-the-post system.

What anti-secularists have failed to understand is that Nepal became a secular state not through the bribing by proselytisers or foreign money. It has to do with the effective dismantling of the monarchy. It was near impossible to abolish monarchy without doing away with Hinduism. It is said that the drafters of the Constitution of 1990 never intended to make Nepal a Hindu state; their intention was only to have a Hindu monarch. It was the sheer folly of the then prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai who by inserting a comma between the words “hindu” and “monarchy” in Article 4 of the Nepali version of the Constitution of 1990 turned Nepal into a Hindu state.

One may pose a question here: If a single person can repeatedly become the prime minister, why can’t it be applied to the monarchy? There is no dearth of wishful thinking. However, I offer a hypothetical explanation: given the mess we have created, even the former king will think twice to make a third-time comeback.

Manandhar is a freelance consultant